Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Left Wing Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (4195)	2/28/2001 6:06:13 PM
From: Win Smith	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6089

You mention the analysts and suggest that they are know-nothings. Quite the contrary, they know which side of the bread is buttered. And it is buttered by those who pay the salaries and bonuses. So, when you see that less than 0.5% of all analysts recommendations are to sell, why is that? Because the butter men are in the business of selling shares, not in buying them in from disgruntled clients. And when you see the analysts tout stocks and put out "strong buy" recommendations at market tops, why, that is because the analysts are doing their job, helping the insiders to unload their shares in an orgy of distribution. And today, when the analysts recant their optimism and tell the retail fool to sell, why, that's because the smart money wants to begin the cycle again and accumulate the depreciated shares of the demoralized chump who sees nothing ahead but a recession. Fortunately for the smart money, they control the institution that controls the monetary printing presses and so we will go off to the races again shortly, but not before we provide a good scare for the general public, who really need to panic a bit more in order for the right people to be in position to take advantage. Ray, that takes me back to the NYT article on Michael Lebed that was discussed here recently. Particularly this bit from the kid himself, saying pretty much the same thing you said above. "I was going over some old press releases about different companies. The best performing stock in 1999 on the Nasdaq was Qualcomm (QCOM). QCOM was up around 2000% for the year. On December 29th of last year, even after QCOM's run from 25 to 500, Paine Webber analyst Walter Piecky came out and issued a buy rating on QCOM with a target price of 1,000. QCOM finished the day up 156 to 662. There was nothing fundamentally that would make QCOM worth 1,000. There is no way that a company with sales under $4 billion, should be worth hundreds of billions. . . . QCOM has now fallen from 800 to under 300. It is no longer the hot play with all of the attention. Many people were able to successfully time QCOM and make a lot of money. The ones who had bad timing on QCOM, lost a lot of money. "People who trade stocks, trade based on what they feel will move and they can trade for profit. Nobody makes investment decisions based on reading financial filings. Whether a company is making millions or losing millions, it has no impact on the price of the stock. Whether it is analysts, brokers, advisors, Internet traders, or the companies, everybody is manipulating the market. If it wasn't for everybody manipulating the market, there wouldn't be a stock market at all. . . ." nytimes.com He understands the game very well. Arthur Levitt looks extremely foolish by comparison. Of course, Arthur Levitt is a salesman too, just like all the analysts. -Win.